Michael Prescott's Blog

Getting it wrong

This post is basically a big nothingburger -- just something I was thinking about and decided to write up. It concerns famous or characteristic statements by well-known fiction writers which may be clever but simply are not true. 

"There are no second acts in American lives." - F. Scott Fitzgerald. 

Fitzgerald was a very fine writer, and The Great Gatsby is one of the essential American novels. But his famous pontification about American lives couldn't be more wrong. American society is all about second acts. How many Americans do you know who have changed careers in midlife, or gone back to college, or remarried, or moved across country or even overseas?

In many ways Ronald Reagan's life story is quintessentially American. He started off as a radio sportscaster, then took a chance and went to Hollywood, becoming a successful movie actor (not a B-movie actor, as sometimes claimed; he made A pictures). Later he made the transition to television and became the national spokesman for GE. As he traveled the country he grew more and more interested in politics, eventually winning the office of governor of California and, later, president of the US. As president, he survived an assassination attempt, after which he developed a deep religious faith.

No second act? Reagan's life had a third, fourth, and fifth act! 

Reagan may have been unusually protean, but Americans in general are constantly reinventing themselves, as is America itself. Strange that Fitzgerald, an otherwise acute observer, could miss such an obvious fact. 

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." - Leo Tolstoy. 

This famous opening sentence to Anna Karenina packs a lot of punch, and without a doubt the novel itself is one of the high water marks of world literature. But if you think about it, Tolstoy's seemingly profound observation makes little sense. How are happy families all alike? The truth is that families often find very different ways of being happy. In fact, there is at least as much variety among happy families as there is among the unhappy ones.

One might even maintain that unhappy families tend to be more alike, since the things that typically drive families apart (infidelity, drug and alcohol addiction, emotional and physical abuse) fall into a pretty restricted range. 

"Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions." - Ayn Rand. 

This key quote from John Galt's epic speech in Atlas Shrugged sums up a great deal of Rand's philosophy, and it is certainly powerful rhetoric. But is it true? Hardly. First, it is impossible to determine exactly what constitute "rational goals." Reason is crucial in developing strategies to achieve a given goal, but it can't tell us what goals to seek in the first place. Reason is about means, not ends. (Rand's attempt to solve the is-ought problem at the root of this distinction was a failure.) Moreover, it is psychologically impossible to be "rational" -- in the narrow, limited sense in which Rand uses the term -- all the time. Even if this state of mind were desirable (which I doubt), it is not achievable, because human beings are not purely creatures of reason; we are motivated in part by instinct, emotion, sentiment, and neurotic hopes and fears, not to mention the apprehension of transcendent truths that don't translate readily into "rational" argument.

If Rand's statement were true, then no one would ever have been happy in the whole history of the world, including Rand herself, who had more than her share of irrationalities. Among other things, she had phobias about germs and air travel; she became addicted to diet pills containing amphetamines; she was neurotically afraid of investing her money in anything riskier than a low-interest savings account; she had an explosively violent and unpredictable temper; she irreparably damaged her marriage by pursuing a younger man who was not in love with her; and she alienated most of her close friends and supporters by treating them badly. She was, in short, human -- all too human. 

So what's my overall point? I don't have much of one; this is a nothingburger post, remember? But I guess I would say that facility with words and plots and fictional characters does not necessarily translate into truthful observations about human nature. Sometimes it does (Shakespeare and Mark Twain were keen observers) and sometimes it doesn't. 

Or in shorter terms: caveat lector (reader beware)! 

There are two kinds of people in the world ...

I originally posted these thoughts in the comments thread of the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, where they didn't get much notice. Since I like this little essay, I'm reproducing it here, slightly augmented with some notes in square brackets, with a few links put in for people who want citations on particular points.

Twenty years ago (or more) I was a big Rand fan. Since then my outlook has changed entirely, but I still find it interesting to look at Rand's ideas and where I think they went wrong.

---

In an essay that originally appeared in The Ayn Rand Letter, Rand speculated that the so-called anticonceptual mentality might literally be the missing link in human evolution. (This essay was titled either "The Anti-Conceptual Mentality" or "The Missing Link," as I recall. It was reprinted in one of her collections, probably posthumously.)

[The anticonceptual mentality was Rand's characterization of people who think only in terms of concretes, rather than abstractions.]

What is worrisome about this notion is that, if accepted, it would entitle Objectivists to classify anyone who is "anticonceptual" as nonhuman or subhuman. I happen to think that this was Rand's actual opinion. Although she never came right out and said it, it is strongly implied throughout her writings. Just look at all her pejorative references to irrationalists as subhumans, savages, cavemen, etc. It is also implied in her habitual reliance on the term "man qua man," a phrase denoting the rational, conceptual-mentality man, as opposed to the irrationalist, who is presumably not "man qua man," i.e., not really man at all. (Bear in mind that an irrationalist in Rand's terms may be almost anyone who broadly rejects her system.)

[Rand uses the term "man qua man" all the time. See this Wiki article, esp. the section "Values."]

Again, she did not state this view unambiguously, but I believe a close reading of her work will reveal it. Perhaps this explains why many Objectivists find it so easy to condemn their critics in language suggesting that they are not human ("insects, lice, animals, brutes, parasites," etc.). Perhaps it also explains why the Winston Tunnel disaster ends the way it does.

[The Winston Tunnel disaster is a major scene in Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, in which hundreds of ordinary people perish in a railroad accident. The narrator makes the point that all of them deserved it, because each had sacrificed rationality in some way. The link above takes you to a long excerpt from the scene.]

If this was indeed Rand's view, then her biological argument for metaethics starts to make more sense. Rational man is literally a different species from irrational man, and therefore the requirements of his survival are qualitatively different from those of moochers, looters, second-handers, and other irrationalists.

But of course the downside of this view, besides the fact that it has no evident biological foundation, is that it divides the world into authentic human beings and counterfeit human beings, with the latter being disposable. Rand's stated views on American Indians fit neatly into this model. [See the comments as well in the last link.]

Perhaps Whittaker Chambers caught a whiff of this idea when he famously wrote that on nearly every page Atlas Shrugged he could hear a narrator intone, "To a gas chamber - go!" After all, are subhumans entitled to human rights? Maybe human rights are reserved only for those who are "truly" human ...

I'm not trying to be snarky about this. I honestly believe that Rand's viewpoint ran along these lines, even if, for obvious reasons, she chose to present it only by implication.

Yes, Virginia, existence exists

When I first became acquainted with the Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I was very impressed with the idea that one could derive an entire, logically consistent worldview from a few simple axiomatic premises. This approach promised total certitude in philosophizing. It took me quite a few years to understand that, as appealing as this promise may seem, it is a promise that cannot be kept. (Which is only one of many reasons why I'm not an Objectivist anymore.)

Rand cited three fundamental axioms as the basis of her system, but to keep things simple I will only cover one of them: "Existence exists." She derived momentous truths from this statement, which she identified as self-evident and therefore impossible to refute.

Actually, I agree with her that the statement is irrefutably true. "Existence exists" is a tautology, just like "All bachelors are unmarried" or "Two plus two equals four." Given the meaning of the terms, the truth of the statement follows ineluctably.

But this is a mere verbal conceit. It does not tell us anything useful about the nature of reality.

To see why, note that any number of philosophers of competing traditions would readily agree with the idea that existence exists. A Thomist, for instance -- a follower of Thomas Aquinas -- would certainly agree that existence exists, but he would define existence as including God and the whole supernatural realm. On the other hand, an atheist would also agree that existence exists, but he would define existence as meaning only the space-time universe that we perceive with our senses.

That both the Thomist and the atheist would agree on the premise, yet come to radically different conclusions, merely shows that they would interpret or define the premise differently. The word "existence" is so all-encompassing and so vague that anyone can define it pretty much any way he wants. Therefore it means almost nothing and can be used to prove almost anything.

What Objectivists do -- and I'm not suggesting they do it intentionally; in fact, I believe most of them are very much unaware of it, just as I was -- is to implicitly define "existence" as meaning only the physical reality that we inhabit. The fact that this is not the only possible definition eludes them because their atheistic-materialistic assumptions are so deeply rooted as to be taken for granted. It is not that Objectivists deliberately equivocate on the meaning of the term "existence"; it simply does not occur to them that the word could have a wider meaning than the one they ascribe to it.

But if "existence exists" means that the physical universe is the only reality, then the statement ceases to be axiomatic and self-evident. The great majority of people throughout history, after all, have held precisely the opposite view -- so if someone is going to maintain this position, he is obliged to provide detailed arguments and empirical evidence in its support. But a proposition requiring argument and evidence is not a self-evident axiom and cannot be a fundamental starting point of a system of thought.

So Objectivists are in a quandary. They can define "Existence exists" in the broadest terms, in which case the statement is truly axiomatic but doesn't mean very much and can be used to support virtually any set of conclusions. Or they can define "Existence exists" much more narrowly, so as to rule out any supernatural existence, but then they can no longer claim that the proposition is axiomatic, since it must rest on a sophisticated defense of materialism.

What they're not entitled to do is claim that the proposition is a self-evident axiom even while defining it in terms that require a detailed defense.

And this is why it's not possible to rationalistically derive a philosophy of life from first principles. If the first principles are so vague as to be truly axiomatic and tautological, they will not lead to any clear-cut conclusions. If the first principles are narrower and more meaningful, then they will not be self-evident and will really not be first principles at all.

I'm afraid there's no shortcut to figuring out the meaning of life, no simple formula by which one can deduce a whole range of empirically valid truths from a logical starting point. We have to begin, not with abstract principles, but with observations and experience -- not with so-called axioms, but with hard, cold facts. That's just the way it is.

If you think about it, it's kind of self-evident.

>---

I'm indebted to Greg Nyquist's discussion of this point in his worthwhile book Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. Valuable critiques of Rand's metaphysics are also found in Scott Ryan's Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality and John W. Robbins' Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System.

Telephone

I'm no fan of Ayn Rand, but sometimes I have a little bit of sympathy for her. Like today, when I came across this bizarre claim on a Web message board:

Has anyone else heard about the allegations that Ayn Rand met with, and then supposedly became Adolf Hitler's mistress? I saw a documentary (I think, by LifeWerks) that implied some sort of relationship.

I have no idea what "documentary" this person is talking about. Maybe he has gotten Rand confused with the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (sometimes alleged to have been Hitler's mistress) or with Eva Braun (who actually was Hitler's mistress and, for the last thirty-six hours of their lives, his wife).

Needless to say, there is not a shred of truth in these "allegations" about Rand, who was in the USA, working in Hollywood (and married), while Hitler rose to power. She never met Hitler or had anything to do with him. Nor would she have been attracted to Hitler in any event; she would have correctly sized him up as a racist, collectivist, statist, and anti-Semite. (Rand, born Alicia Rosenbaum, was Jewish.)

One could make the case that there are some commonalities in Rand's philosophy and Hitler's. Both were strongly influenced by Nietzsche. As a result, both rejected any moral obligation to help the weak and downtrodden; both characterized large segments of society as "parasites"; both were contemptuous of Judeo-Christian ethics, which Nietzsche famously labeled a "slave morality."

But the differences outweigh any similarities. Hitler was a fervent irrationalist who believed intellect should be subjugated to "blood" or "will." He hated capitalism, America, and Western civilization in general. He despised businessmen and glorified military heroes. He romanticized ancient Teutonic traditions and tried to revive the pagan religion of the pre-Christian era. He advocated and eventually practiced mass murder. None of this would have struck a responsive chord in Ayn Rand.

You have to wonder how idiotic rumors like this one get started. Personally, I think the Internet is a global, high-tech version of the kiddie game "Telephone." You know how that works. Kid A whispers a message to Kid B,who whispers to Kid C, and by the time the word reaches Kid Z, the message has been hopelessly garbled. You start with, "Ayn Rand was a fan of Nietzsche, and so was Hitler," and somewhere down the road you end up with, "Ayn Rand and Hitler were soul mates; she was his mistress."

Another blog observes,

In the 19th century, newspapers would sometimes flag articles "Important If True" when their information was potentially urgent but they didn’t have time to verify it before press-time. One wag wrote that churches should put the same sign over their doors.

Maybe we ought to post the same words on all Web pages.

Including this one, naturally.